Farmers in Wales - for instance, the blogosphere's own
Glyn Davies - are rightly very happy at the moment. Because, finally, a Rural Affairs minister has had the gumption to back them against the mighty badger lobby, and
ordered a badger cull.
Admittedly, this news should be greeted with some caution. For a start, nobody seems to have yet decided when, or where, or how this cull should take place - three necessary prerequisites before it can actually go ahead. Also, it's referred to as "a pilot scheme" - which is something of a puzzle given that the overwhelming evidence we have is of a causal link between badgers and tuberculosis in cattle (despite what has been said by the badger lobby). Why, then, do we need a pilot when there have been studies in Devon, Ireland and other parts of Europe? I suspect this is probably to reasssure whatever random group of badger supporters is out there at the moment that this is being kept under tight control, and is not an unrestricted war on badgers.
It might also, in fairness, be because one of the earlier studies (the Krebs report) suggested that while culling badgers caused a reduction in TB in the areas of intensive culling, it could cause an increase in TB
outside that area. Worse, a limited, targeted cull of small hotspots tended to be counter-productive, causing a substantial spike in the number of cases. Both of these are presumably because badgers get scared off areas where culls are in progress, and in doing the sensible thing and running away are actually spreading the infection. These findings were seized on by animal welfare groups as evidence that there is no link between TB in cattle and badgers. Sorry, but I'd conclude the opposite - it shows that there is a link, because a variation in one factor causes a change in the other. Quite how strong the link is, or what other factors come in, is a matter that of course still isn't proven. Foxes and mice - particularly dormice - have also been linked to TB in cattle in the past, and should not be thought to be in the clear this time.
I will, from my own experience, put one myth to rest right here. There is often the glib answer from the ALF and its front organisations, when asked what does cause TB in cattle, that the blame lies with "bad farming practices." In other words, the irresponsible movement, sale and proximity of quarantined livestock. As daft notions go, I fear that one is right up there with the idea that Elvis was abducted by aliens. It's more than possible that it accounts for a small proportion of cases - I've known enough thoroughgoing crooks in the farming community in my time not to be stupid enough to think that they are all noble, selfless saints. But in rural Gloucestershire, where I was born, there were mysterious cases of TB in herds that had been closed for more than 40 years (by closed, I mean no new livestock brought in). Investigation of the farmland invariably found a new badger sett. Long before Krebs, I was happy in my own mind that there was a strong causal link between badgers and TB in cattle. And living in the worst TB blackspot in Europe, the infamous Longhope Triangle, it was a big issue - one I had to chew over a lot. That was the positive evidence against this theory of bad farming practices. The negative was of course - such farming methods in that part of the world had been largely unchanged since the 1940s - why had they not caused a TB explosion before? And, above all, why did it coincide with a sudden surge in badger numbers when they became a protected species?
Arguments like these didn't stop the protests when a badger cull was started, of course. But it was notable that the local badger groups were much quieter, and a lot of the protestors had to be bussed in from Cheltenham, Gloucester or even Oxford. Or, as one of the local badger league put it, "Why don't they understand that we want healthy badgers and healthy cattle?" A cull might give him that - wiping out the diseased badgers, if it is done thoroughly, will allow healthier badgers to move in.
That leads on to a further argument - the welfare one. Let's not forget, most of the badgers to be slaughtered (and here I side with Glyn - let's not over-use the word "cull" so that it sounds euphemistic) will themselves have TB. I don't recommend having TB. It's a horrible, painful, intractable and in badgers invariably fatal disease. I reckon most of them would take being shot over coughing up their lungs. So let's not get too carried away by sentiment on behalf of the badgers here in any case - they're doomed in the short term anyway, one way or another.
Once all the false arguments, the wrong assumptions and the verbiage has been stripped of the arguments against a badger cull, it boils down basically too "they're lovely animals, they're rare and they should be protected." For the last argument, I recommend the article of Mr.
Ross Clark, who demolishes the notion that they are either rare or deserving of protection (although I don't agree with him when he says that badgers are a worse pest than squirrels - squirrels are disease-ridden, invasive, aggressive little menaces, and there's millions of them). For the lovely animals, yes they are lovely. Handsome, frolicsome, and fantastically intelligent, they are by far my favourite of the pig family. They're also vicious (I've seen 'em fight) and diseased. They are a pest. Pests have to be controlled. If that means slaughter, well, it's not ideal, but it's a price I can live with.
Kudos should go to the Minister concerned for this decision, my local AM Elin Jones, whom I, hardly a natural Plaid supporter, was glad to vote for last May. This isn't going to win her friends in a powerful and ruthless lobby on behalf of the badgers - so it must have taken real courage. But I think it is the right decision.
Labels: Badgers, Glyn Davies, Ross Clark